Global Warming sweet spot, where the temperature changes rapidly.

This is from an article about global warming, but most of the article doesn't talk about this specific point, it just kind of mentions it. I think
this alluded to point makes this an important item to post here on ATS.

"Then our climate models show if you have permafrost and you warm the temperatures slowly, there is sort of a sweet spot in the model: When you
cross it, the whole thing just goes," Pagani said.
...

These ancient hyperthermals are described by the researchers as intense bursts of warming, but nowadays the planet is warming more rapidly. Scientists
anticipate that the melting Arctic permafrost is likely to exacerbate things.

Add this to news pointed out on another thread, about the discovery of methane plumes on the Arctic continental shelf, it leaves one to wonder if we
are going to hit this sweet spot soon.

I stopped reading at this point "Then our climate models show"... You can not predict the complexities of the earth with a computer program! There
are many things we still do not even understand about our planet! But these jokers can know all with a computer? Nah...

The uk has a super computer system to predict the weather, guess what? It's quite often wrong! What makes you think the global warming models are any
better?

It's all a scam in my opinion as well as a distraction!

"The government will save us! They care about us and our planet!"

Do they hell!

If all this man made climate change was really true, the ever loving government would put a BAN on companies 'polluting' the earth... But no, they
tax them instead! Which of course will be passed on down to us, eventually!

I'll keep my eye on the true threat to humanity! The very ones professing to save us!

Predicting the weather, and figuring out weather patterns of the past are two completely different things.

Computers are just tools to help science.

I guess you don't believe in science. Don't believe the Ice Ages ever happened? Dinosaurs couldn't have existed because the Earth is only 10k
years old?

Weather patterns from the past are based on the study of the Earth, which leaves behind very solid evidence that can be verified by numerous studies
around the globe.

Not when you are using computer models! I believe that SOME science is legit, but just like everybody else scientists can be bought! They are not
infallible and they also do not agree with each other! There are scientists that say we had no ice age and some say we did! That's my point! I have
no idea how old the earth is and neither does anyone else.

I don't doubt that some evidence is left behind... But certainly not all! And also data can be manipulated! Just look at climategate to see that!

I think these models are very dangerous, I also see faith in scientists as being dangerous too, especially when they are making predictions or
evaluating data... Science can tell us a certain amount, undoubtedly and I do not dismiss it in it's entirety but I am cautiously skeptical of their
findings.

You don't believe in using computers? Computing modelling has made many major tech advances. Sure, I guess at some point computer models might be
dangerous, like a shovel can be dangerous, but mostly they are effective tools.

Sure, there are people who fudge the evidence. Most of them are paid by big corporations to fudge their data and deny global warming.

Not when you are using computer models! I believe that SOME science is legit, but just like everybody else scientists can be bought! They are
not infallible and they also do not agree with each other! There are scientists that say we had no ice age and some say we did! That's my point! I
have no idea how old the earth is and neither does anyone else.

I don't doubt that some evidence is left behind... But certainly not all! And also data can be manipulated! Just look at climategate to see that!

I think these models are very dangerous, I also see faith in scientists as being dangerous too, especially when they are making predictions or
evaluating data... Science can tell us a certain amount, undoubtedly and I do not dismiss it in it's entirety but I am cautiously skeptical of their
findings.

Scientists can be bought, but science cannot be. One person or a few might try to fake something, but other repeating the experiment do not get the
same results and cry foul.

The fact that scientists do not agree with each other is normal. It does not mean that science is wrong. It means that new ideas are being contested
and challenged which is what makes science so strong. There are those that make the false claim that all scientists refuse to buck the system. That is
false as you point out yourself.

Any scientist that says there are no ice ages is not a real scientist. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for many ice ages in the last billion
years.

The data obtained from the LGR instruments showed that total annual flux for methane emissions from ESAS (8 teragrams, or 8 Tg) is nearly
equivalent to the total estimated emissions from all the world’s oceans.

All though this could be explained better, and leaves room for interpretation.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.